Re: [HASMAT] moving forward - WG name

Tobias Gondrom <> Mon, 23 August 2010 16:18 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 782EA3A68D8 for <>; Mon, 23 Aug 2010 09:18:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -94.712
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-94.712 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.650, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=2.426, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ft3TKAY8uoOB for <>; Mon, 23 Aug 2010 09:18:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0AFB3A68BF for <>; Mon, 23 Aug 2010 09:18:37 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default;; b=G+ZzaO/kM7r5zaOd8RQmwbILAxNDjbfgPr+z7hBnezPY6s5xIiYaszys7mD+sRvG5IzEfLNdIFgT2WNihQjDft2+9fO1MrY3O+5CG8gMCSLHL25v9RfmOtua3wSIXDOK; h=Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:X-Enigmail-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding;
Received: (qmail 20440 invoked from network); 23 Aug 2010 18:17:23 +0200
Received: from (HELO seraphim.heaven) ( by with (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 23 Aug 2010 18:17:23 +0200
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 17:17:37 +0100
From: Tobias Gondrom <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100802 SUSE/3.1.2 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [HASMAT] moving forward - WG name
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: HTTP Application Security Minus Authentication and Transport <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 16:18:39 -0000

 believe "websec" was proposed during BOF meeting and actually "hasmat"
reminded me of "hazardous materials" at first, so would support to go
for a different name if people like to.
Have no problem if the name is general, after all the charter and not
the name determines WG scope (and as the name will stay even if you may
recharter at some point, so general can rather be an advantage for a name).

htsec is fine for me, too (though personally I may slightly prefer websec).
Would be against webappsec due to ambiguity and actually adding "app" in
the middle doesn't help and makes the name unnecessarily long (there are
practical benefits from short WG names).

would agree with websec

On 08/23/2010 11:50 AM, Kai Engert wrote:
>  On 20.08.2010 20:08, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> 3. Name. Some people have said that "HASMAT" isn't very descriptive of
>> the subject matter, and that we might want something like "WEBSEC". As
>> long as folks don't think "WEBSEC" means that we'd be working on
>> everything under the sun related to the security of the web, I'd be fine
>> with a name like that. Other suggestions are welcome.
> "websec" sounds indeed very general, while the meaning of "hasmat"
> focuses on a smaller subset.
> I wanted to propose "WebAppSec", but there's already
> What about HTSEC ? (hypertext security)
> Kai
> _______________________________________________
> HASMAT mailing list